Field
Aspects of the present invention generally relate to an image processing system which accepts a job execution instruction from a user, and performs a job.
Description of the Related Art
In a conventionally-known image processing system, a user uses a terminal to set contents of a job and transmits a request relating to the job (which will simply be referred to as “a job request” as needed) to an image processing apparatus. When receiving the request, the image processing apparatus performs the job.
For example, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 7-288625 discusses a mechanism for transmitting documents read by a scanner via facsimile (fax) by using a system including an information processing terminal and a fax apparatus. In the system described in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 7-288625, a user uses an information processing terminal to specify a resolution for documents to be read and a telephone number or the like of a destination, and transmit a document transmission instruction command including the specified contents to a fax apparatus. The fax apparatus reads the documents and faxes the image data in accordance with the contents of the document transmission instruction command.
Some image processing apparatuses possibly perform a job in response to accepting a job execution instruction from a user. For example, if a job to be performed is reading a document and faxing image data, in response to accepting a job execution instruction from a user, the image processing apparatus sequentially performs processing for reading the document and processing for faxing the image data.
However, if a plurality of terminals transmits requests relating to jobs or if a single terminal consecutively transmits a plurality of requests, the following cases could occur.
For example, there are cases where a user operating a first terminal transmits a fax transmission job request to an image processing apparatus and, shortly after the request, another user operating a second terminal transmits another fax transmission job request to the same image processing apparatus. In such cases, if the image processing apparatus is configured not to accept a plurality of job requests simultaneously, the image processing apparatus accepts the job request that is first received from the first terminal, but does not accept the job request that is next received from the second terminal.
The second terminal is notified that the job request from the second terminal has not been accepted. However, if, for example, the user of the second terminal leaves the second terminal for where the image processing apparatus is located, the user of the second terminal may fail to notice that the job request has not been accepted. If this is the case, the user of the second terminal operates the image processing apparatus, mistakenly assuming that his/her own job request has been accepted by the image processing apparatus. If the user of the first terminal has not yet reached the image processing apparatus at this point, the accepted job (namely, the job from the first terminal) is still stored in the image processing apparatus. Thus, mistakenly assuming that this stored job is his/her own job, the user of the second terminal sets his/her own documents on a scanner and issues a job execution instruction. As a result, the contents of the documents brought by the user of the second terminal could be erroneously transmitted to a destination set by the user of the first terminal and information leakage could occur.
This case could also occur when a single terminal is shared by a plurality of users. Even if a single terminal is used by a single user, if the user consecutively operates the terminal to fax a plurality of documents to respective different destinations, the user may erroneously issue incorrect job execution instructions, resulting in erroneous transmission.
As a method for preventing erroneous transmission, there has been conventionally known a method of displaying a destination confirmation screen when a user issues a transmission job execution instruction, for example. However, if information for confirmation is always provided or if an operation for confirmation is always requested regardless of the possibility of occurrence of erroneous transmission, usability is decreased.